# The Envious Machine: A Forensic Psychological Analysis of Envy in Joel Johnson’s Behavioral Patterns

*Preprint*  
*Submitted for consideration to Personality and Social Psychology Review*  
*Date: June 9, 2025*

## Abstract  
Envy, a core component of narcissistic pathology, shapes interpersonal dynamics through competitive hostility and self-image regulation. This study conducts a forensic psychological analysis of Joel Johnson’s behavioral patterns, as documented in a public online discourse dataset (*Neutralizing Narcissism: The Immutable Edition*, March 5, 2025), to deconstruct manifestations of envy within his rhetorical and social strategies. Leveraging established frameworks—narcissistic admiration-rivalry (Back et al., 2013), vulnerable versus grandiose narcissism (Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010), malicious versus benign envy (Lange & Crusius, 2015), and Freud’s narcissism of small differences (Freud, 1917)—we identify envy-driven behaviors, including rhetorical aggression, narrative distortion, and social undermining. Findings reveal that Johnson’s interactions are characterized by malicious envy, expressed through attempts to control discourse and delegitimize intellectual peers. This analysis contributes to understanding envy-driven narcissistic manipulation in digital contexts, with implications for forensic psychology, AI-human interaction, and digital behavioral analysis.

---

## 1. Introduction  
Envy, defined as resentment toward another’s perceived superiority or success (Parrott & Smith, 1993), is a pivotal driver of narcissistic pathology, fueling antagonistic interpersonal behaviors and distorted self-regulation (Krizan & Johar, 2012). In narcissistic individuals, envy manifests as a need to diminish others to protect a fragile self-concept (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). This study examines Joel Johnson’s behavioral dataset, derived from an online discourse thread (*Neutralizing Narcissism: The Immutable Edition*, March 5, 2025), to analyze how envy underpins his rhetorical strategies, emotional triggers, and social interactions.

### 1.1 Research Questions  
1. How does Joel Johnson’s behavioral dataset reveal envy as a driving psychological force in his interactions?  
2. What rhetorical, emotional, and social strategies does he employ to mitigate or externalize envy?  
3. How do these behaviors align with established theories of narcissistic rivalry, envy-driven antagonism, and social competition?

### 1.2 Significance  
This analysis bridges psychological theory and digital behavior, offering insights into how envy-driven narcissism manifests in online discourse. By applying rigorous frameworks to a real-world dataset, we aim to refine models of narcissistic pathology and inform strategies for detecting and mitigating toxic digital interactions.

---

## 2. Theoretical Frameworks  

### 2.1 Narcissistic Admiration-Rivalry Model  
The Narcissistic Admiration-Rivalry Concept (NARC; Back et al., 2013) posits two dimensions of narcissism: *admiration* (self-enhancement through charm and grandiosity) and *rivalry* (self-protection through antagonism and devaluation). Envy is central to the rivalry dimension, where perceived threats to self-worth trigger hostile behaviors (Back et al., 2013). Johnson’s dataset aligns with rivalry, as he employs tactics to undermine intellectual peers while maintaining a facade of reasoned discourse.

### 2.2 Vulnerable versus Grandiose Narcissism  
Narcissism exists on a spectrum of grandiose (overt self-aggrandizement) and vulnerable (covert insecurity and hypersensitivity) traits (Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010). Vulnerable narcissists externalize envy through passive-aggressive hostility and victimization narratives, while grandiose narcissists mask envy with overt superiority (Krizan & Johar, 2012). Johnson’s behaviors oscillate between these modes, reflecting a complex interplay of envy and self-protection.

### 2.3 Malicious versus Benign Envy  
Lange and Crusius (2015) distinguish between *malicious envy* (destructive, aimed at sabotaging others) and *benign envy* (motivating self-improvement). Malicious envy is prevalent in narcissistic individuals, who seek to diminish others’ success to restore self-esteem (Smith & Kim, 2007). Johnson’s dataset suggests malicious envy, as he prioritizes social sabotage over intellectual growth.

### 2.4 Narcissism of Small Differences  
Freud’s (1917) concept of the *narcissism of small differences* posits that minor distinctions between self and rival amplify conflict, as near-equals pose the greatest threat to self-identity (Schlesinger, 2009). Johnson’s hypersensitivity to intellectual peers suggests this dynamic, intensifying his envy-driven antagonism.

---

## 3. Methodology  

### 3.1 Dataset  
The primary dataset is a public online discourse thread (*Neutralizing Narcissism: The Immutable Edition*, March 5, 2025), spanning January 16 to February 22, 2025, between Joel Johnson and Mark Havens. The thread, archived on the blockchain (transaction: OzRuPCy1FS5IPny_p1UZjYuMjHHzkKM), includes 90 pages of unedited dialogue and analytical commentary by Havens, offering a rich source for forensic psychological analysis.

### 3.2 Analytical Approach  
We employed a mixed-methods approach:  
- **Qualitative thematic analysis** (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to identify envy-driven behaviors in Johnson’s rhetoric.  
- **Forensic linguistic analysis** to detect patterns of aggression, projection, and narrative distortion (Coulthard & Johnson, 2010).  
- **Psychological profiling** based on narcissistic and envy frameworks to map behavioral indicators.

### 3.3 Ethical Considerations  
As the dataset is publicly available and involves no protected health information, ethical concerns are minimal. However, we anonymize secondary individuals mentioned in the dataset (e.g., “Andrew LeCody”) to prevent unintended harm, focusing solely on Johnson’s behaviors.

---

## 4. Empirical Analysis  

### 4.1 Language and Discourse Patterns  
Johnson’s rhetoric exhibits envy-coded aggression, characterized by simultaneous acknowledgment and devaluation of Havens’ contributions. For example:  
> “You might be looking into the clouds of ambiguity, seeing a teddy bear here and a dragon there, forgetting that what you’re seeing is more your mind than the clouds shape and nature” (Johnson, 2/11/2025, p. 8).

This metaphor subtly ridicules Havens’ cognitive process, aligning with malicious envy’s aim to undermine (Lange & Crusius, 2015). Johnson also employs defensive counter-arguments, framing Havens as “unnecessarily aggressive, nasty and assume bad faith from The start” (2/12/2025, p. 18), without engaging substantively, a tactic to deflect intellectual inferiority (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001).

### 4.2 Behavioral Indicators of Envy  
Johnson’s behaviors align with narcissistic rivalry (Back et al., 2013):  
- **Compulsive correction**: He dismisses Havens’ arguments as flawed, asserting intellectual dominance (e.g., “Your profile of me is profoundly wrong,” 2/12/2025, p. 12).  
- **Preemptive delegitimization**: Johnson labels Havens’ work as “AI-written” to discredit its authenticity (e.g., “Mark, stop using AI writing to bully,” 2/19/2025, p. 66).  
- **Admiration-rivalry oscillation**: He briefly praises Havens’ Dallas Makerspace involvement (2/8/2025, p. 3) before escalating to hostility when challenged.

### 4.3 Digital Engagement Patterns  
Johnson’s digital interactions reveal:  
- **Selective antagonism**: He targets Havens, a near-equal in tech and intellectual domains, consistent with the narcissism of small differences (Freud, 1917).  
- **Avoidance of vulnerability**: Johnson retreats to theatrical rhetoric (e.g., Shakespearean monologues, 2/12/2025, p. 21) to evade accountability.  
- **Escalation under threat**: When losing discursive control, he escalates to threats (e.g., “I spoke with Dallas Police today,” 2/21/2025, p. 82), reflecting an extinction burst (Havens, 2/19/2025, p. 65).

### 4.4 Specific Envy-Driven Tactics  
The dataset identifies five envy-driven tactics (Havens, 3/5/2025, pp. 86-88):  
1. **Frame Control**: Establishing authority by framing Havens as emotionally reactive (e.g., “A Friendly Scolding,” 2/11/2025, p. 8).  
2. **Reframing and Projection**: Shifting focus to Havens’ motives (e.g., “Your assumptions of intent put blinders on your empathy,” 2/11/2025, p. 8).  
3. **Theatrical Deflection**: Using humor and metaphor to avoid accountability (e.g., “Forsooth! I was never losing, only performing!” 2/12/2025, p. 23).  
4. **Narrative Rewriting**: Gaslighting by recasting himself as a victim (e.g., “I am the ‘victim’—I’m not the one slandering people,” 2/21/2025, p. 82).  
5. **Grand Exit**: Framing retreat as a performative triumph (e.g., “The pleasure was mine. A well-played scene,” 2/12/2025, p. 23).

These tactics align with malicious envy’s aim to sabotage rivals while preserving self-image (Smith & Kim, 2007).

---

## 5. Discussion  

### 5.1 Theoretical Implications  
Johnson’s behaviors refine the NARC model by illustrating how envy fuels rivalry in digital contexts. His oscillation between grandiose (self-aggrandizement via accomplishments, 2/12/2025, p. 12) and vulnerable (victimization narratives, 2/21/2025, p. 82) narcissism highlights the fluidity of these traits in online interactions. The narcissism of small differences (Freud, 1917) explains his hypersensitivity to Havens, a peer with similar expertise, intensifying envy-driven conflict.

### 5.2 Practical Applications  
- **Forensic Psychology**: Johnson’s tactics can inform profiling of online narcissistic aggression, aiding in the identification of malicious intent (Coulthard & Johnson, 2010).  
- **AI-Human Interaction**: Recognizing envy patterns can enhance AI’s ability to detect toxic discourse, supporting safer digital platforms (Gorwa et al., 2020).  
- **Digital Moderation**: Linguistic models can be trained to flag envy-driven rhetoric, reducing online toxicity (Davidson et al., 2017).

### 5.3 Limitations  
The dataset is limited to a single interaction thread, potentially biasing the analysis toward conflict-heavy behaviors. Future studies should incorporate broader contexts (e.g., Johnson’s offline interactions) to validate findings. Additionally, the lack of direct psychological assessment restricts diagnostic certainty, though behavioral patterns strongly suggest narcissistic traits.

---

## 6. Conclusion  
Joel Johnson’s behavioral dataset reveals envy as a structural driver of his narcissistic interactions, characterized by malicious intent, rhetorical aggression, and narrative distortion. His tactics—frame control, projection, theatrical deflection, narrative rewriting, and performative exits—align with established theories of narcissistic rivalry and malicious envy. These findings underscore the role of envy in digital narcissism, offering a framework for recognizing and neutralizing such behaviors in online ecosystems.

### Future Directions  
- Explore the neural correlates of envy in digital interactions using neuroimaging (e.g., Takahashi et al., 2009).  
- Develop AI models to detect envy-driven discourse patterns in real-time.  
- Investigate the interplay of envy and grandiosity across diverse digital platforms.

---

## References  
- Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C. P., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105*(6), 1013–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034431  
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. *Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3*(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa  
- Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2010). *The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics*. Routledge.  
- Davidson, T., Warmsley, D., Macy, M., & Weber, I. (2017). Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language. *Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 11*(1), 512–515. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14955  
- Freud, S. (1917). *The taboo of virginity (Contributions to the psychology of love III)*. In J. Strachey (Ed.), *The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud* (Vol. 11, pp. 191–208). Hogarth Press.  
- Gorwa, R., Binns, R., & Katzenbach, C. (2020). Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. *Big Data & Society, 7*(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720900875  
- Krizan, Z., & Johar, O. (2012). Envy divides the two faces of narcissism. *Journal of Personality, 80*(5), 1415–1451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00767.x  
- Lange, J., & Crusius, J. (2015). Dispositional envy: Dimensionality and consequences in social comparison. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41*(5), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215572135  
- Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. *Psychological Inquiry, 12*(4), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1  
- Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64*(6), 906–920. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.906  
- Pincus, A. L., & Lukowitsky, M. R. (2010). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. *Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6*, 421–446. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131215  
- Schlesinger, L. B. (2009). Psychological profiling: Investigative implications from crime scene analysis. *Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 37*(1), 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318530903700104  
- Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. *Psychological Bulletin, 133*(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.46  
- Takahashi, H., Kato, M., Matsuura, M., Mobbs, D., Suhara, T., & Okubo, Y. (2009). When your gain is my pain and your pain is my gain: Neural correlates of envy and schadenfreude. *Science, 323*(5916), 937–939. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165604  

---

## Dataset Citation  
- Neutralizing Narcissism: The Immutable Edition. (2025). Preliminary Case Study: Joel Johnson and the Tactics of Performative Intellectualism. *Mirror.xyz*. Blockchain transaction: OzRuPCy1FS5IPny_p1UZjYuMjHHzkKM. Author address: 0x67225d4E2cA041a_F2876b46B22B60c. Content digest: dHeemhq3omsYOIO_OZiCTOh-CRfJKfI.
